Roy Pitt Must Be The Republican Nominee for Justice of the Peace District 7

Key Points:

CLARIFICATION: AFTER THIS ARTICLE WAS PUT OUT, I WAS INFORMED THAT THIS INFORMATION IS BEING DISPUTED. I WILL PROVIDE AN UPDATE WHEN I HAVE ONE.

Jeffery Page – is on the ballot but cannot be elected to the position; if he wins, the position will be vacant.

Roy Pitt – must win the runoff election to ensure that the choice of JP 7 remains with the voters of that district. If he does not win, the Governor of Arkansas must appoint someone.

The runoff for Justice of the Peace District 7 presents a unique and unusual choice for the voters of that district in Miller County. As most people already know, the position had three Republicans file. Jeffery Page, Roy Pitt, and James Syler all presented great choices for the district. But unfortunately, there was no clear winner on election night, and now a runoff is scheduled for Page and Pitt.

The problem for voters in the district is that Page withdrew as a candidate before the election. This left Pitt and Syler, but the ballots had already been printed. Arkansas law required the ballots to go to voters as printed. The result is a runoff between Pitt and Page with a pending result that could remove the right of choice from the people living in district 7.

If the voters in the district vote for Page and he wins the nomination, then the position is declared vacant. This means there is no Democrat candidate on the ballot, and there will be no Republican on the ballot. If the position is declared vacant, the choice of a Justice of the Peace for District 7 falls to the Governor of Arkansas. This would mean that voters would not select their representative, but instead, the Governor would choose one living in the district.

For the voters to have their own elected Justice of the Peace, Republican voters in the district must get behind and vote for Roy Pitt. It would be beneficial for both Syler and Page to endorse Pitt and support his campaign. The county committee and the people of District 7 should get behind Pitt and ensure he wins the runoff election.

Miller County Prepares for Runoff for Sheriff and JP 7

As election night came to a close on May 24, it was quickly apparent that two county offices would head into a runoff. The office of Sheriff will see Stephen Ward and Wayne Easley as candidates for the runoff, while JP 7 will see Roy Pitt and Jeffery Page in a runoff.

Ward and Easley have both maintained positive and friendly campaigns, and that attitude seems to have appealed to many voters. There have been several comments on social media along the lines of "We have two good men running, and it's hard to decide," and "Both these guys are great...I just don't know who I should vote for now." Comments, and support, have been relatively positive for both, and it has not hurt either campaign for the two candidates to appear in pictures and publications together. The only thing certain is that on June 21, one of these two great candidates will be elected as the Republican nominee for Sheriff. Having no Democrat opponent, the winner in June will win in November and be sworn in as Miller County Sheriff on January 1, 2023.

The race for Justice of the Peace 7 presents a unique set of problems for the candidates, the elections commission, and the state. Early in the race, candidate Jeffery Page withdrew from the race for JP 7. Unfortunately, he withdrew after the ballots had already been printed. According to state law, Page's name would remain on the ballot. The three-way race for JP 7 resulted in the planned runoff between Page and Pitt. The state and the elections commission are reviewing Arkansas law to determine how to handle a Page win on election day. The only thing clear is that Page can not be elected to the position. Should he win the Republican nomination, keeping in mind there is no Democrat opponent, a vacancy would be declared. Some laws seem to indicate that the Governor could appoint a JP; however, other laws suggest that the Miller County Republican Committee would elect the position. It's important to stress that the state and the elections commission, along with attorneys working with both, are still trying to determine precisely what avenue must be followed according to law. Currently, the idea the Governor would appoint or the committee would appoint is still subject to a final ruling by the state. In a best-case scenario for the county, Pitt would win. Even if he wins, Page can not assume the nomination because he has officially withdrawn.

Lightfoot's Lalaland

Lori Lightfoot, the mayor of Chicago, tweeted out a "call to arms" on her confirmed Twitter account regarding the Supreme Court. Specifically, Lightfoot tweeted:

"To my friends in the LGBTQ+ community-the Supreme Court is coming for us next. This moment has to be a call to arms." She added a follow-up tweet "We will not surrender our rights without a fight-a-fight to victory!"

Lightfoot, who historically seems to be in LaLaLand*, has once again landed herself in there with a tweet that makes no sense whatsoever, calls for armed insurrection against the United States, and ultimately begs the question, "Exactly what are you going to fight with? You're anti-gun, right?" Let's not even mention that if a Republican made the same statement, it would be plastered all over the news, an investigation would be initiated, and in some cases, the Twitter account would be suspended or even banned. Still, I'm sure that would never happen to a Republican, right?

If we take Lightfoot seriously, which I must admit is a stretch for most people, then we can break down precisely what is meant by her statement:

1. She has no idea what the Supreme Court is doing. Over the last several years, the court has upheld gay marriage, LGBTQ+ rights in the workforce and community, and always ruled in favor of the rights of the LGBTQ+ person. So why does she think they are suddenly coming after the LGBTQ+ community? Is she saying this because of abortion, and if so, is abortion rights a major focus or issue in the LGBTQ+ community? Overnight, the Supreme Court will backtrack on the last ten years' worth of ruling and come after the LGBTQ+ community...not likely. This is simply a mayor seeking attention for her tweets and reaching into her community to stir something up where nothing is present to be stirred.

2. Next, Lightfoot wants a call to arms. Again, she wants this call to arms because of what the Supreme Court is apparently about to do. Lightfoot, with her inside view into the legal workings of the court, has decided they are going to do something. Again, here they are going to come after the LGBTQ+ community in some mysterious way. Lightfoot wants a call to arms, or another term that will be familiar to everyone is an "insurrection" because, after all, a call to arms against the Supreme Court is a call to arms against the United States. Yeah, and just as a side-note here...a call to arms against the United States is illegal and punishable under the law.

3. Finally, along with the call to arms, Lightfoot promises the LGBTQ+ community will not allow this...whatever this is...to happen without a fight. We clearly see she wants the community armed - yeah, that goes along with her anti-gun views - and she wants to fight. Based on her statements, we can conclude that the mayor of Chicago is preparing to attack the Supreme Court of the United States of America. That's what she said in her tweet, and based on a logical breakdown, that is what we must assume she intends to happen.

So, the ultimate question here is, should Lightfoot's threat be taken seriously? She has 150,000+ followers on her Twitter account. She is the mayor of a large city with some of the highest incidents of gun violence despite its strict anti-gun laws, and she has a significant group of followers. Yes, she should be taken seriously. Based on previous actions and investigations into threats against the United States, at the least, there should be an investigation. Will there be an investigation? Ultimately, that's up to the powers that be, but I bet if someone told those powers she is now a Republican, it would be front-page news, she would be banned from Twitter, and the FBI would be knocking on her door...just saying.


* Lalaland is a colloquial term for “being out of touch with reality,” usually due to bliss or ignorance. (from https://www.dictionary.com/e/slang/lalaland/)